The NAM opposed the District of Columbia's law suit that attempted to hold gun manufacturers liable for damages resulting from the criminal misuse of guns. The District is one of several governments that have tried to use aggressive theories of "negligent marketing" and "public nuisance" to garner jury verdicts against manufacturers of legal products that are later misused.Our brief argued that DC legal precedents clearly do not allow such suits for negligence, and there can be no public nuisance claim when the manufacturer does not control the property at the time it is alleged to be creating the nuisance.
On 4/29/04, the Court of Appeals ruled that individual common-law negligence and DC's public nuisance claims must be dismissed. It allowed individual strict liability claims to proceed under DC's medical costs arising from such claims. Plaintiffs will still have to prove on remand that a particular manufacturer's weapon was responsible for their injuries. The court rejected a Commerce Clause challenge to the impact of DC's law on the legal manufacture and sale of firearms in other states.
The case was reheard by the full complement of judges on the D.C. Court of Appeals. The NAM's last brief was filed on 11/8/04.
On 4/21/05, the full court again ruled that the negligent marketing and public nuisance claims must be dismissed. The court found it unreasonable and not well circumscribed to impose a general duty on an indeterminate class of manufacturers to make marketing changes that might serve to protect an indeterminate class of potential plaintiffs. The court also rejected a public nuisance claim since it is unreasonable to hold a manufacturer liable for the illegal acts of many parties over whom it has no control. Instead there must be a clear duty, foreseeability and direct causation to impose liability.